[PleaseReadBeforeJudging] Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Bouyer on Reformation

Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation MARK BRUMLEY

Many Protestants see the Catholic/Protestant split as a tragic necessity, although the staunchly anti-Catholic kind of Protestant often sees nothing tragic about it. Or if he does, the tragedy is that there ever was such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church that the Reformers had to separate from. His motto is "Come out from among them" and five centuries of Christian disunity has done nothing to cool his anti-Roman fervor.

Yet for most Protestants, even for most conservative Protestants, this is not so. They believe God "raised up" Luther and the other Reformers to restore the Gospel in its purity. They regret that this required a break with Roman Catholics (hence the tragedy) but fidelity to Christ, on their view, demanded it (hence the necessity).

Catholics agree with their more agreeable Protestant brethren that the sixteenth century division among Christians was tragic. But most Catholics who think about it also see it as unnecessary. At least unnecessary in the sense that what Catholics might regard as genuine issues raised by the Reformers could, on the Catholic view, have been addressed without the tragedy of dividing Christendom.

Yet we can go further than decrying the Reformation as unnecessary. In his ground-breaking work, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Louis Bouyer argued that the Catholic Church herself is necessary for the full flowering of the Reformation principles. In other words, you need Catholicism to make Protestantism work - for Protestantism's principles fully to develop. Thus, the Reformation was not only unnecessary; it was impossible. What the Reformers sought, argues Bouyer, could not be achieved without the Catholic Church.

From Bouyer's conclusion we can infer at least two things. First, Protestantism can't be all wrong, otherwise how could the Catholic Church bring about the "full flowering of the principles of the Reformation"? Second, left to itself, Protestantism will go astray and be untrue to some of its central principles. It's these two points, as Bouyer articulates them, I would like to consider here. One thing should be said up-front: although a convert from French Protestantism, Bouyer is no anti-Protestant polemicist. His Spirit and Forms of Protestantism was written a half-century ago, a decade before Vatican II's decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, yet it avoids the bitter anti-Protestantism that sometimes afflicted pre-conciliar Catholic works on Protestantism. That's one reason the book remains useful, even after decades of post-conciliar ecumenism.

Bouyer, then, addresses both Protestants and Catholics. To the Protestants, he says, in effect, "It is fidelity to our Protestant principles, properly understood, that has led me into the Catholic Church." To the Catholics, he says, "Protestantism isn't as antithetical to the Catholic Faith as you suppose. It has positive principles, as well as negative ones. Its positive principles, properly understood, belong to the Catholic Tradition, which we Catholics can see if we approach Protestantism with a bit of understanding and openness."

The Reformation was Right

Bouyer's argument is that the Reformation's main principle was essentially Catholic: "Luther's basic intuition, on which Protestantism continuously draws for its abiding vitality, so far from being hard to reconcile with Catholic tradition, or inconsistent with the teaching of the Apostles, was a return to the clearest elements of their teaching, and in the most direct line of that tradition."

1. Sola Gratia. What was the Reformation's main principle? Not, as many Catholics and even some Protestants think, "private judgment" in religion. According to Bouyer, "the true fundamental principle of Protestantism is the gratuitousness of salvation" - sola gratia. He writes, "In the view of Luther, as well as of all those faithful to his essential teaching, man without grace can, strictly speaking, do nothing of the slightest value for salvation. He can neither dispose himself for it, nor work for it in any independent fashion. Even his acceptance of grace is the work of grace. To Luther and his authentic followers, justifying faith . . . is quite certainly, the first and most fundamental grace."

Bouyer then shows how, contrary to what many Protestants and some Catholics think, salvation sola gratia is also Catholic teaching. He underscores the point to any Catholics who might think otherwise:

"If, then, any Catholic - and there would seem to be many such these days - whose first impulse is to reject the idea that man, without grace, can do nothing towards his salvation, that he cannot even accept the grace offered except by a previous grace, that the very faith which acknowledges the need of grace is a purely gratuitous gift, he would do well to attend closely to the texts we are about to quote."

Bouyer quotes, at length, from the Second Council of Orange (529), the teaching of which was confirmed by Pope Boniface II as de fide or part of the Church's faith. The Council asserted that salvation is the work of God's grace and that even the beginning of faith or the consent to saving grace is itself the result of grace. By our natural powers, we can neither think as we ought nor choose any good pertaining to salvation. We can only do so by the illumination and impulse of the Holy Spirit.

Nor is it merely that man is limited in doing good. The Council affirmed that, as a result of the Fall, man is inclined to will evil. His freedom is gravely impaired and can only be repaired by God's grace. Following a number of biblical quotations, the Council states, "[W]e are obliged, in the mercy of God, to preach and believe that, through sin of the first man, the free will is so weakened and warped, that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought, or believe in God, or do good for the sake of God, unless moved, previously, by the grace of the divine mercy . . . . Our salvation requires that we assert and believe that, in every good work we do, it is not we who have the initiative, aided, subsequently, by the mercy of God, but that he begins by inspiring faith and love towards him, without any prior merit of ours."

The Council of Trent, writes Bouyer, repeated that teaching, ruling out "a parallel action on the part of God and man, a sort of 'synergism', where man contributes, in the work of salvation, something, however slight, independent of grace." Even where Trent insists that man is not saved passively, notes Bouyer, it doesn't assert some independent, human contribution to salvation. Man freely cooperates in salvation, but his free cooperation is itself the result of grace. Precisely how this is so is mysterious, and the Church has not settled on a particular theological explanation. But that it is so, insist Bouyer, is Catholic teaching. Thus, concludes Bouyer, "the Catholic not only may, but must in virtue of his own faith, give a full and unreserved adherence to the sola gratia, understood in the positive sense we have seen upheld by Protestants."

2. Sola Fide. So much for sola gratia. But what about the other half of the Reformation principle regarding salvation, the claim that justification by grace comes through faith alone (sola fide) ?

According to Bouyer, the main thrust of the doctrine of sola fide was to affirm that justification was wholly the work of God and to deny any positive human contribution apart from grace. Faith was understood as man's grace-enabled, grace-inspired, grace-completed response to God's saving initiative in Jesus Christ. What the Reformation initially sought to affirm, says Bouyer, was that such a response is purely God's gift to man, with man contributing nothing of his own to receive salvation.

In other words, it isn't as if God does his part and man cooperates by doing his part, even if that part is minuscule. The Reformation insisted that God does his part, which includes enabling and moving man to receive salvation in Christ. Man's "part" is to believe, properly understood, but faith too is the work of God, so man contributes nothing positively of his own. As Bouyer points out, this central concern of the Reformation also happened to be defined Catholic teaching, reaffirmed by the Council of Trent.

In a sense, the Reformation debate was over the nature of saving faith, not over whether faith saves. St. Thomas Aquinas, following St. Augustine and the patristic understanding of faith and salvation, said that saving faith was faith "formed by charity." In other words, saving faith involves at least the beginnings of the love of God. In this way, Catholics could speak of "justification by grace alone, through faith alone," if the "alone" was meant to distinguish the gift of God (faith) from any purely human contribution apart from grace; but not if "alone" was meant to offset faith from grace-enabled, grace-inspired, grace-accomplished love of God or charity.

For Catholic theologians of the time, the term "faith" was generally used in the highly refined sense of the gracious work of God in us by which we assent to God's Word on the authority of God who reveals. In this sense, faith is distinct from entrusting oneself to God in hope and love, though obviously faith is, in a way, naturally ordered to doing so: God gives man faith so that man can entrust himself to God in hope and love. But faith, understood as mere assent (albeit graced assent), is only the beginning of salvation. It needs to be "informed" or completed by charity, also the work of grace.

Luther and his followers, though, rejected the Catholic view that "saving faith" was "faith formed by charity" and therefore not "faith alone", where "faith" is understood as mere assent to God's Word, apart from trust and love. In large part, this was due to a misunderstanding by Luther. "We must not be misled on this point," writes Bouyer, "by Luther's later assertions opposed to the fides caritate formata [faith informed by charity]. His object in disowning this formula was to reject the idea that faith justified man only if there were added to it a love proceeding from a natural disposition, not coming as a gift of God, the whole being the gift of God." Yet Luther's view of faith, contents Bouyer, seems to imply an element of love, at least in the sense of a total self-commitment to God. And, of course, this love must be both the response to God's loving initiative and the effect of that initiative by which man is enabled and moved to respond. But once again, this is Catholic doctrine, for the charity that "informs" faith so that it becomes saving faith is not a natural disposition, but is as much the work of God as the assent of faith.

Thus, Bouyer's point is that the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide) was initially seen by the Reformers as a way of upholding justification by grace alone (sola gratia), which is also a fundamental Catholic truth. Only later, as a result of controversy, did the Reformers insist on identifying justification by faith alone with a negative principle that denied any form of cooperation, even grace-enabled cooperation.

3. Sola Scriptura. Melanchthon, the colleague of Luther, called justification sola gratia, sola fide the "Material Principle" of the Reformation. But there was also the Formal Principle, the doctrine of sola Scriptura or what Bouyer calls the sovereign authority of Scripture. What of that?

Here, too, says Bouyer, the Reformation's core positive principle is correct. The Word of God, rather than a human word, must govern the life of the Christian and of the Church. And the Word of God is found in a unique and supreme form in the Bible, the inspired Word of God. The inspiration of the Bible means that God is the primary author of Scripture. Since we can say that about no other writing or formal expression of the Church's Faith, not even conciliar or papal definitions of faith, the Bible alone is the Word of God in this sense and therefore it possesses a unique authority.

Yet the supremacy of the Bible does not imply an opposition between it and the authority of the Church or Tradition, as certain negative principles adopted by the Reformers implied. Furthermore, the biblical spirituality of Protestantism, properly understood, is in keeping with the best traditions of Catholic spirituality, especially those of the Fathers and the great medieval theologians. Through Scripture, God speaks to us today, offering a living Word to guide our lives in Christ.

Thus, writes Bouyer, "the supreme authority of Scripture, taken in its positive sense, as gradually drawn out and systematized by Protestants themselves, far from setting the Church and Protestantism in opposition, should be the best possible warrant for their return to understanding and unity."

The Reformation was Wrong

Where does this leave us? If the Reformation was right about sola gratia and sola Scriptura, its two key principles, how was it wrong? Bouyer holds that only the positive elements of these Reformation principles are correct.

Unfortunately, these principles were unnecessarily linked by the Reformers to certain negative elements, which the Catholic Church had to reject. Here we consider two of those elements: 1) the doctrine of extrinsic justification and the nature of justifying faith and 2) the authority of the Bible.

1. Extrinsic Justification. Regarding justification by grace alone, it was the doctrine of extrinsic justification and the rejection of the Catholic view of faith formed by charity as "saving faith." Bouyer writes, "The further Luther advanced in his conflict with other theologians, then with Rome, then with the whole of contemporary Catholicism and finally with the Catholicism of every age, the more closely we see him identifying affirmation about sola gratia with a particular theory, known as extrinsic justification."

Extrinsic justification is the idea that justification occurs outside of man, rather than within him. Catholicism, as we have seen, holds that justification is by grace alone. In that sense, it originates outside of man, with God's grace. But, according to Catholic teaching, God justifies man by effecting a change within him, by making him just or righteous, not merely by saying he is just or righteous or treating him as if he were. Justification imparts the righteousness of Christ to man, transforming him by grace into a child of God.

The Reformation view was different. The Reformers, like the Catholic Church, insisted that justification is by grace and therefore originates outside of man, with God. But they also insisted that when God justifies man, man is not changed but merely declared just or righteous. God treats man as if he were just or righteous, imputing to man the righteousness of Christ, rather than imparting it to him.

The Reformers held this view for two reasons. First, because they came to think it necessary in order to uphold the gratuitousness of justification. Second, because they thought the Bible taught it. On both points, argues Bouyer, the Reformers were mistaken. There is neither a logical nor a biblical reason why God cannot effect a change in man without undercutting justification by grace alone. Whatever righteousness comes to be in man as a result of justification is a gift, as much any other gift God bestows on man. Nor does the Bible's treatment of "imputed" righteousness imply that justification is not imparted. On these points, the Reformers were simply wrong:

"Without the least doubt, grace, for St. Paul, however freely given, involves what he calls 'the new creation', the appearance in us of a 'new man', created in justice and holiness. So far from suppressing the efforts of man, or making them a matter of indifference, or at least irrelevant to salvation, he himself tells us to 'work out your salvation with fear and trembling', at the very moment when he affirms that '. . . knowing that it is God who works in you both to will and to accomplish.' These two expressions say better than any other that all is grace in our salvation, but at the same time grace is not opposed to human acts and endeavor in order to attain salvation, but arouses them and exacts their performance."

Calvin, notes Bouyer, tried to circumvent the biblical problems of the extrinsic justification theory by positing a systematic distinction between justification, which puts us in right relation to God but which, on the Protestant view, doesn't involve a change in man; and sanctification, which transforms us. Yet, argues Bouyer, this systematic distinction isn't biblical. In the Bible, justification and sanctification - as many modern Protestant exegetes admit - are two different terms for the same process. Both occur by grace through faith and both involve a faith "informed by charity" or completed by love. As Bouyer contends, faith in the Pauline sense, "supposes the total abandonment of man to the gift of God" - which amounts to love of God. He argues that it is absurd to think that the man justified by faith, who calls God "Abba, Father," doesn't love God or doesn't have to love him in order to be justified.

2. Sola Scriptura vs. Church and Tradition. Bouyer also sees a negative principle that the Reformation unnecessarily associated with sola Scriptura or the sovereignty of the Bible. Yes, the Bible alone is the Word of God in the sense that only the Bible is divinely inspired. And yes the Bible's authority is supreme in the sense that neither the Church nor the Church's Tradition "trumps" Scripture. But that doesn't mean that the Word of God in an authoritative form is found only in the Bible, for the Word of God can be communicated in a non-inspired, yet authoritative form as well. Nor does it mean that there can be no authoritative interpreter of the Bible (the Magisterium) or authoritative interpretation of biblical doctrine (Tradition). Repudiation of the Church's authority and Tradition simply doesn't follow from the premise of Scripture's supremacy as the inspired Word of God. Furthermore, the Tradition and authority of the Church are required to determine the canon of the Bible.

Luther and Calvin did not follow the Radical Reformation in rejecting any role for Church authority or Tradition altogether. But they radically truncated such a role. Furthermore, they provided no means by which the Church, as a community of believers, could determine when the Bible was being authentically interpreted or who within the community had the right to make such a determination for the community. In this way, they ultimately undercut the supremacy of the Bible, for they provided no means by which the supreme authority of the Bible could, in fact, be exercised in the Church as a whole. The Bible's authority extended only so far as the individual believer's interpretation of it allowed.

The Catholic Church and Reformation Principles

As we have seen, Bouyer argues for the Reformation's "positive principles" and against its "negative principles." But how did what was right from one point of view in the Reformation go so wrong from another point of view? Bouyer argues that the under the influence of decadent scholasticism, mainly Nominalism, the Reformers unnecessarily inserted the negative elements into their ideas along with the positive principles. "Brought up on these lines of thought, identified with them so closely they could not see beyond them," he writes, "the Reformers could only systematize their very valuable insights in a vitiated framework."

The irony is profound. The Reformation sought to recover "genuine Christianity" by hacking through what it regarded as the vast overgrowth of medieval theology. Yet to do so, the Reformers wielded swords forged in the fires of the worst of medieval theology - the decadent scholasticism of Nominalism.

The negative principles of the Reformation necessarily led the Catholic Church to reject the movement - though not, in fact, its fundamental positive principles, which were essentially Catholic. Eventually, argues Bouyer, through a complex historical process, these negative elements ate away at the positive principles as well. The result was liberal Protestantism, which wound up affirming the very things Protestantism set out to deny (man's ability to save himself) and denying things Protestantism began by affirming (sola gratia).

Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Reformation affirmed found without the negative elements the Reformers mistakenly affixed to them. But how to bring this about?

Bouyer says that both Protestants and Catholics have responsibilities here. Protestants must investigate their roots and consider whether the negative elements of the Reformation, such as extrinsic justification and the rejection of a definitive Church teaching authority and Tradition, are necessary to uphold the positive principles of sola gratia and the supremacy of Scripture. If not, then how is continued separation from the Catholic Church justified? Furthermore, if, as Bouyer contends, the negative elements of the Reformation were drawn from a decadent theology and philosophy of the Middle Ages and not Christian antiquity, then it is the Catholic Church that has upheld the true faith and has maintained a balance regarding the positive principles of the Reformation that Protestantism lacks. In this way, the Catholic Church is needed for Protestantism to live up to its own positive principles.

Catholics have responsibilities as well. One major responsibility is to be sure they have fully embraced their own Church's teaching on the gratuitousness of salvation and the supremacy of the Bible. As Bouyer writes, "Catholics are in fact too prone to forget that, if the Church bears within herself, and cannot ever lose, the fullness of Gospel truth, its members, at any given time and place, are always in need of a renewed effort to apprehend this truth really and not just, as Newman would say, 'notionally'." "To Catholics, lukewarm and unaware of their responsibilities," he adds, the Reformation, properly understood, "recalls the existence of many of their own treasures which they overlook."

Only if Catholics are fully Catholic - which includes fully embracing the positive principles of the Reformation that Bouyer insists are essentially Catholic - can they "legitimately aspire to show and prepare their separated brethren the way to a return which would be for them not a denial but a fulfillment."

Today, as in the sixteenth century, the burden rests with us Catholics. We must live, by God's abundant grace, up to our high calling in Christ Jesus. And in this way, show our Protestant brethren that their own positive principles are properly expressed only in the Catholic Church.

Mark Brumley. "Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation." Catholic Dossier 7 no. 5 (September-October 2001): 30-35.

This article is reprinted with permission from Catholic Dossier. To subscribe to Catholic Dossier call 1-800-651-1531.

Mark Brumley is managing editor of Catholic Dossier. A convert from Evangelical Protestantism, he was greatly influenced by Bouyer's book The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, when he first read it over twenty years ago. Recently, Scepter Books has republished The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, which can be obtained online at www.scepterpub.org or by calling 1-800-322-8773.

Good quote from Spurgeon.

***

EODGUY, none of us serious Protestants gives a fig for strictly "polite" discussions which by their phony philosophizing never get to the real issues of RCism, necessarily including our deadly serious complaints against Rome.

Please understand that. We don't hate you. But we do care about God's Word--suopremely so--and it would appear to us that you definitely don't. That, in turn, causes us to be concerned about you--enough to warn you that something is wrong with your spiritual nature. And our concerns are so real, so deep, that we dare to warn you even while knowing that you will almost certainly get angry.

The problem is, when we do dare to voice our Scriptural complaints with measured earnestness, you call it venom. You call us schizophrenics. You mock us in every way possible.

We hope that you can get beyond indulging in this unfair slander, but you ordinarily don't get beyond it. Worse still, you turn around and pose as the charitable one in the discussion. This suggests to me that BRADD is a complete farce designed to protect RCs from being subjected to the Scriptural criticism which they may very well need to face honestly for once in their lives. (Interestingly in that very regard, I notice that you simply ignore our Scriptural arguments!)

The thing that is most disturbing about this inarguably ugly scenario is that Judas Iscariot betrayed the Truth with a kiss of phony charity. So, please be careful about this whole thing. Pleasant "coffee table discussions" of theology, with smarmy protestations of devotion to Christ, are unacceptable to us. This stuff is more serious than you realize.

(By the way, JMJ333 has shown by her more recent posts that she is completely missing the point as to what our passion is. She just doesn't understand how holy God is. And she is hoping against hope that we are wrong about the necessary FEAR of God. Well, she ought to read Augustine!)

I have personally tried to stick to the Scriptures to the extent possible on this thread. And I still owe attagirl a post on baptism. But with the exception of attagirl, no RC on this thread has deigned to discuss the Scriptures at any vvery great depth with us.

You ought to read my #680, 697, and 699. What I said really needs to sink deep into your soul. Most professing Christians really are lost. Satanic deception is immeasurably worse than most people realize.

At the bottom-line, we have practically nothing in common with RCs. We try to help you, and you despise us for our nouthetic approach. (What else is new in this fallen but weirdly religious world?)

My bias: Protestant Dissenters, how can you so often truckle to a Church which is assuming the rags of the old harlot more and more openly every day? Alliance with true believers is one thing, but union with a Popish sect is quite another. Be not ye partakers with them. Protestantism owed much to you in past ages, will you not now raise your voice and show the ignorant and the priest-ridden the tendencies of all these mummeries, and the detestable errors of the Romish Church and of its Anglican sister. - C.H. Spurgeon

Scripture is interesting. One of the consistencies of it is the label it applies to Satan: the "Accuser." Apropos of that, the acrid, overwrought, and hyperbolic bombast of "C.L. Spurgeon" could not have been better composed in the pit of hell itself.

Wake up, Prots. The relationship with Jesus Christ is just that, a relationship. It's an intense relationship of love. And, just as in human relationships, love for Christ is proved in deeds, not sweet words. Remember the sheep and the goats?

As a matter of historical fact, every dogma of faith that distinguishes Catholicism from Protestantism (the Holy Mass, the Eucharist, the Holy Virgin, Petrine Primacy) was endorsed in writing by St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was martyred at an advanced age around AD 100, and is known to have lived in the time of Christ.

As for St. Augustine, he was writing strongly in heated arguments against Pelagianism when he made some somewhat ambiguous remarks about Free Will and works. These he later clarified as not meaning that the human will is incapable of moral goodness. And, by the way, if you're going to raise Augustine, how do like this Augustine quote: "Through her He came to us, so through her we must always return to Him: Mary."

Justification is at the root of the Reformation. It is a topic near and dear to the Reformed /Protestant heart ,and it always demands a response :>)." That's ultimately James's point but Romans Catholics do not understand the point being amde by James.
This is why we Protestants are charged with ignoring James--when we are NOT ignoring James. THEY are actually ignoring PAUL in Romans 3:28. " Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith APART from the deeds of the law."
Justification, as the peculiarly crucial idea of salvation, stands completely apart from the works of the Law. Paul is explicit in this. The very fact that Paul says man is justified APART from the works of the Law tells us that the works of the Law have no PART in our justification.
This forces us to read James as teaching another matter of practical Christianity, not the high doctrine which Paul is explicitly presenting. James is playing a rhetorical game with the folks who are in danger of believing that they have justifying faith when they don't have it--inasmuch as the salvation which begins at justification does produce the good works which they are simply despising.
Some Catholics act as if James is trashing Calvinists, but he is actually trashing antinomians. (That's different, as I am sure you have figured out!)
The bottom-line point in this is that the average Catholic, has never been taught what saving faith IS. Antinomianism masquerading as saving faith is deadly in the way it blocks saving faith, but legalism masquerading as saving faith is deadly, too. Even adulterating faith with works is potentially deadly in that works invariably get Satanically insinuated AS faith itself. This is why so many people think that good works will get them to heaven. (They are mistaken. What they have is just a refusal to repent for real, as you pointed out. They are calling that faith. It ain't any such thing.)
Because of the time elapsed, I've reproduced the first part of your comments so that you know to what I'm referring.
I love the way you slough over James by saying that he is talking to antimonians and therefore it doesn't pertain to the general audience. James is pretty straight-talking throughout and his message is not qualified anywhere.
The idea that the message is directed toward those who don't think they need to believe in order to be saved is not implied anywhere, and it's very self-serving of you to make that inference.
Now, in regards to Paul to the Romans 3:28: it seems as if he is saying faith is sufficient for justification. But notice the absence of the word ALONE.
Furthermore, when he refers to the Law, it is the ceremonial Mosaic law. For corroboration that it is so look at Romans 7:6 "Now we have been released from the law--for we have died to what bound us..."
Furthermore, recall the admonition that adultererss, sodamizers, thieves will not enter God's kingdom (1Cor:9). That shows the moral law is very much in play still.
No one has commented on the most obvious quote of all: "For I was hungry and you gave me food..." (Matt 25:35 That's JESUS, folks, at the Last Judgment, so I guess He cares more than a little as to our "works." In looking over the rest of what you've written, it just strikes me as very legalistic and contrived. I don't understand what is so hard to understand. We must first believe that Jesus is Savior, but we must not presume upon that faith.
You are quite correct, RuMomof7--I misspoke when I cited the Markian quote. I notice you cared not to comment on anything else.

every dogma of faith that distinguishes Catholicism from Protestantism (the Holy Mass, the Eucharist, the Holy Virgin, Petrine Primacy) was endorsed in writing by St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was martyred at an advanced age around AD 100, and is known to have lived in the time of Christ.

In the end, this is why I am Catholic. Ignatius wrote 80 years after Christ's death, believed in the REAL PRESENCE of Christ in the Eucharist, the hierarchy, the CATHOLIC CHURCH, and Petrine authority. Ignatius was a personal follower of John the Evangelist.

If Catholics fell into error only 80 years after Christ, we all believe in vain, and this ENTIRE thread is the rambling of self deceived lunatics.

Ignatius' belief in the Eucharist, which is exactly what Catholics and only Catholics believe today, proves the banality of the rest of these protestant protestations.

It is just plain silliness.

The Truth is here before your very eyes in the beliefs of Ignatius.

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, a disciple of John, a Christian writing around 110 ad, less than 80 years after the death of Christ, was very clear:

CHAPTER VII.--LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

CHAPTER VIII.--LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery [priests] as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

CHAPTER IX.--HONOUR THE BISHOP.

Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness[of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does[in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for ye are worthy. Ye have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ[shall refresh] you. Ye have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while ye endure all things, ye shall attain unto Him.

This PROVES the early Church, even during the life of the personal disciples of the apostles, was

1)Sacramental (The Holy Eucharist IS the Body of Christ) 2)Hierarchical 3)given authority by Christ Jesus 4)CATHOLIC

You accept it or deny it.

The Reformers petty little opinions are naught.

When ANYONE Catholic,Baptist ,Presbyterian,Weselyan....ANYONE refuses the gospel message are LOST like Paul they kick against the goad..that hurts their toes ya know:>)....

What is the gospel message....you know because YOU responded to it....For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Salvation
- Is of God
#PS 3:8; Salvation [belongeth] unto the LORD: thy blessing [is] upon thy people. Selah.

- Is of the purpose of God
#2TI 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

- Is of the appointment of God
#1TH 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

- Is by Christ
EPH 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

- Is by Christ alone
AC 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

- Revealed in the gospel
#EPH 1:11-13; 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
1:13 In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
2TI 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

- CHRIST, . The Captain of our salvation
#HEB 2:9-10 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 For it became him, for whom [are] all things, and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Christ the Author of our Salvation
#HEB 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Christ Appointed for our salvation
#ISA 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

. . . Mighty to effect
HEB 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

. Came to effect
#MT 18:11For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

. Died to effect #JOH 3:14,15; 14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
:15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
GA 1:4Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

- Is not by works #RO 11:6And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
EPH 2:9;Not of works, lest any man should boast.
2TI 1:9;Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
TIT 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

- Is of grace #EPH 2:5,8;
2:5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
2:8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God
2TI 1:9;Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
TIT 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

- Is through faith in Christ
#MR 16:16;He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
AC 16:31;And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
RO 10:9;That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. EPH 2:8;For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
1PE 1:5Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

- Reconciliation to God,
#RO 5:10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

- IS DELIVERANCE FROM . Sin MT 1:21; 1JO 3:5
. Uncleanness EZE 36:29
. The devil COL 2:15; HEB 2:14,15
. Wrath RO 5:9; 1TH 1:10
. This present evil world GA 1:4
. Enemies LU 1:71,74
. Eternal death #JOH 3:16,17
- Confession of Christ necessary to RO 10:10
- Regeneration necessary to JOH 3:3
- Final perseverance necessary to MT 10:22

Thank you for at least endeavoring to respond, unfortunately your little cut & paste falls into the typical catholic habit being overly selective and completely dishonest in the use of Scripture in those rare instances where Scripture is attempted to be used.
In an effort to twist the meaning of the Bible you reference:

EXODUS 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims [of] gold, [of] beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.
EXODUS 25:19 And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: [even] of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof.
EXODUS 25:20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth [their] wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces [shall look] one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.

But leave out:

EXODUS 25:21 And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.
EXODUS 25:22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which [are] upon the ark of the testimony, of all [things] which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

God didn’t tell Moses to build these things to worship them, God projected a physical manifestation when He was speaking from above the mercy seat. Only God was being worshipped.

LEVITICUS 16:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the LORD, and died;
LEVITICUS 16:2 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy [place] within the vail before the mercy seat, which [is] upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.

Nowhere in I CHRONICLES 28:18-19, EZEKIEL 41:17, -18 is anyone directed to worship or “venerate” any of the man-made items mentioned.
Your use of:

NUMBERS 21:4 And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way.
NUMBERS 21:5 And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for [there is] no bread, neither [is there any] water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.
NUMBERS 21:6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
NUMBERS 21:7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
NUMBERS 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
NUMBERS 21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

Is another example of the typical catholic habit of trying to claim one word means something entirely different In case you do not comprehend, there is a REALLY big difference between LOOKING at something and PRAYING to it.

II KINGS 18:1 Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, [that] Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign.
II KINGS 18:2 Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also [was] Abi, the daughter of Zachariah.
II KINGS 18:3 And he did [that which was] right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.
II KINGS 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.
II KINGS 18:5 He trusted in the LORD God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor [any] that were before him.
II KINGS 18:6 For he clave to the LORD, [and] departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses.

In a pathetic effort to rationalize the theological bait and switch catechism claims:

2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone: Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

Every idolatrous cult in history shoveled this same baloney to it’s adherents. If you asked a Buddhist today if the idol he is praying to is in fact buddha himself you would get the same sort of “my prayers don’t terminate at the idol but go to Buddha himself.” that rome misleads you with.

Many Japanese are either Shinto or Buddhist and bow to their idols as well. Given that the Japanese don’t seem to figure very heavily into either the New or Old Testament makes mention of their social habits toward each other in this discussion a REAL DESPERATE REACH. God never forbade artwork, the difference between a statue and an idol is how it is used. If you are attempting to create a spiritual connection through a man-made object it is an IDOL.

The bottom line is, when God made the New Covenant with us, he did reveal himself under a visible form in Jesus Christ. For that reason, we can make representations of God in Christ. Even Protestants use all sorts of religious images: Pictures of Jesus and other biblical persons appear on a myriad of Bibles, picture books, T-shirts, jewelry, bumper stickers, greeting cards, compact discs, and manger scenes. Christ is even symbolically represented through the Icthus or "fish emblem."

No Christian is praying to “Pictures of Jesus and other biblical persons appear on a myriad of Bibles, picture books, T-shirts, jewelry, bumper stickers, greeting cards, compact discs, and manger scenes or Icthuses”.
The Icthus is a symbol that was discretely placed on secret house Churches in rome so Christians would be able to identify meeting places without tipping off roman pagans.
In all of this overly wordy dodge you STILL haven’t answered the question:
Where in the Holy Bible did Jesus or any of the Apostles ever "venerate images" or teach anyone else to do so?
If all this baloney was correct there should be some record of the Apostles creating or commissioning the creation of an “image” of Jesus but there IS NOT. In fact Paul was nearly murdered by artisans who made idols because they realized the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ meant the end of their business.

ACTS 19:21 After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome.
ACTS 19:22 So he sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timotheus and Erastus; but he himself stayed in Asia for a season.
ACTS 19:23 And the same time there arose no small stir about that way.
ACTS 19:24 For a certain [man] named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen;
ACTS 19:25 Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth.
ACTS 19:26 Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:
ACTS 19:27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.
ACTS 19:28 And when they heard [these sayings], they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great [is] Diana of the Ephesians.
ACTS 19:29 And the whole city was filled with confusion: and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theatre.
ACTS 19:30 And when Paul would have entered in unto the people, the disciples suffered him not.
ACTS 19:31 And certain of the chief of Asia, which were his friends, sent unto him, desiring [him] that he would not adventure himself into the theatre.
ACTS 19:32 Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.
ACTS 19:33 And they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander beckoned with the hand, and would have made his defence unto the people.
ACTS 19:34 But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great [is] Diana of the Ephesians.
ACTS 19:35 And when the townclerk had appeased the people, he said, [Ye] men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the [image] which fell down from Jupiter?
ACTS 19:36 Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly.
ACTS 19:37 For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
ACTS 19:38 Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsmen which are with him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one another.
ACTS 19:39 But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
ACTS 19:40 For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse.
ACTS 19:41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.

The Second Council of Nicaea (787), which dealt largely with the question of the religious use of images and icons,

Funny, it took about 750 years after Jesus earthly Ministry and 435 years after the roman creation of the catholic “church” for an official declaration that idolatry is acceptable.

The church absolutely recognizes and condemns the sin of idolatry. What anti-catholics fail to recognize is the distinction between thinking a piece of stone or plaster is a god and desiring to visually remember Christ and the saints in heaven by making statues in their honor. The making and use of religious statues is a thoroughly biblical practice.

The roman lie about calling idolatry “veneration” and claiming that there is a difference is like trying to claim that there is a difference between prostitution and having sex for money.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.